Comparison of pulsed radiofrequency with conventional radiofrequency in the treatment of idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia

Comparison of pulsed radiofrequency with conventional radiofrequency in the treatment of... The aim of this prospective, randomized, double‐blinded study was to evaluate the effect of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in comparison with conventional radiofrequency (CRF) in the treatment of idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia. A total of 40 patients with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia were included. The 20 patients in each group were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Each patient in the Group 1 was treated with CRF, whereas each patient in the Group 2 was treated by PRF. Evaluation parameters were: pain intensity using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), patient satisfaction using a Patient Satisfaction Scale (PSS), additional pharmacological treatment, side effects, and complications related to the technique. The VAS scores decreased significantly (p<0.001) and PSS improved significantly after the procedure in Group 1. The VAS score decreased in only 2 of 20 patients from the PRF group (Group 2) and pain recurrence occurred 3 months after the procedure. At the end of 3 months, we decided to perform CRF in Group 2, because all patients in this group still had intractable pain. After the CRF treatment, the median VAS score decreased (p<0.001) and PSS improved (p<0.001) significantly. In conclusion, the results of our study demonstrate that unlike CRF, PRF is not an effective method of pain treatment for idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Journal of Pain Wiley

Comparison of pulsed radiofrequency with conventional radiofrequency in the treatment of idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/comparison-of-pulsed-radiofrequency-with-conventional-radiofrequency-TLxh8ry04u
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
2007 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain
ISSN
1090-3801
eISSN
1532-2149
DOI
10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.04.001
pmid
16762570
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The aim of this prospective, randomized, double‐blinded study was to evaluate the effect of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in comparison with conventional radiofrequency (CRF) in the treatment of idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia. A total of 40 patients with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia were included. The 20 patients in each group were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Each patient in the Group 1 was treated with CRF, whereas each patient in the Group 2 was treated by PRF. Evaluation parameters were: pain intensity using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), patient satisfaction using a Patient Satisfaction Scale (PSS), additional pharmacological treatment, side effects, and complications related to the technique. The VAS scores decreased significantly (p<0.001) and PSS improved significantly after the procedure in Group 1. The VAS score decreased in only 2 of 20 patients from the PRF group (Group 2) and pain recurrence occurred 3 months after the procedure. At the end of 3 months, we decided to perform CRF in Group 2, because all patients in this group still had intractable pain. After the CRF treatment, the median VAS score decreased (p<0.001) and PSS improved (p<0.001) significantly. In conclusion, the results of our study demonstrate that unlike CRF, PRF is not an effective method of pain treatment for idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia.

Journal

European Journal of PainWiley

Published: Apr 1, 2007

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off